Judging Freedom - Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Israel/Ukraine Wrap

Episode Date: June 28, 2024

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Israel/Ukraine WrapSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, June 28th, 2024. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins us now. Colonel, a pleasure, my dear friend. We have to keep meeting. We have to keep meeting like this on Friday afternoons. It's an education for me and for the viewers. Colonel, is the United States at war with Russia? In terms of the law of war and the law in general, no. But in terms of reality, yes. Now, why do you say in terms of reality? Because we have given enough support to Ukraine, the principal antagonist against Russia in this, to be constituted as a part of the war power opposing Russia. You don't have to parse words too much there to figure that out. And we have people on the ground now and people doing things like

programming Tachym's missiles and other ordnance. And we are sharing really some very sophisticated intelligence from both satellites and airborne sensors with Ukraine. So if I were on the other side, I would consider us at war with me. The other side, that being Foreign Minister Lavrov, said to the American ambassador to Russia, name now escaping me, not quite the language you and I are using, but sort of the flip side of it. We are no longer at peace with each other. Diplomat talk.

Correct, diplomat talk. Something Tony Blinken doesn't want to do since he doesn't even want to speak with Lavrov, but we've been through that. Does the attack on civilians on the beach in Sevastopol using cluster bombs substantially alter our relationship to Russia? There are a number of answers to that question, some more technical than others. One is we shouldn't be using cluster bombs against anyone on the face of this planet.

Cluster bombs are terrible. They're worse than landmines. They should be outlawed. Their residual effects are terrible because about 40% of them don't go off. And so what you have is little kids and women and others walking around, picking them up and blowing their hands and arms off. That's the first thing. And the second thing, we should never have given cluster bombs to Ukraine.

The second thing is, I think from what I have heard, the Russian attempt to shoot down the missiles that were coming in didn't go haywire, but it did what sometimes happens with defenses. It made that particular missile go off course. That's what I've heard anyway. I don't know. And so it was an, you could say it was an accident, but it was shot that way. So how can you say it was an accident? And the third is, this is just another example, like shooting the early warning ballistic missile radar, other things that we've allowed Ukraine to do of how the answer to your question, your first question is in the affirmative. Yes, we are at war with Russia. Since cluster bombs are illegal all over the world, except the US, Russia, Ukraine, a few countries that haven't agreed to that, who would have made the decision in the United States government to send them to the Ukrainians, knowing how desperate they are at the end game or nearly the end game of this war with Russia?

How far up the chain of command would that decision to send cluster bombs have been made, Colonel? I'd like to say that from my experience in government, it would go all the way to the top. You mean the president or the secretary of defense? Secretary of defense. We have a bifurcated relationship in America. Donald Rumsfeld tried to make it singular, but it isn't singular. There are two civilians in the chain of command. The chairman of the joint chiefs is not even in the chain of command. He is just an advisor. The secretary of defense and the president. And the secretary of defense can do some pretty awesome things. He can deploy forces. He can send carriers places and so forth. He normally won't

do it without consulting the president. But it could have been Austin that authorized this. Even with that, though, I've got to say that to give these kind of munitions, just like white phosphorus or anything like that, that ought to be on the banned list, to give these kind of munitions to someone like Zelensky and his forces who are apt to use them. Let me rephrase that. Who are most likely to use them is insanity. We should never do that. But we did. I don't know who approved it ultimately, but it had to be someone up the chain. And let me say something else, too. I've just learned that during Pompeo's time at the State Department and carried on, we at the State Department surrendered even more of our authorities and responsibilities than we did during the time Powell was there.

And we fought kicking and screaming to keep from surrendering anymore. Condi surrendered a little bit more. Condi Rice, the subsequent Secretary of State. When you say surrendered, meaning surrendered to whom? To the Pentagon. So when they do things like the campaign in the Philippines, for example, where they actually probably kill some Filipinos who caught COVID and wouldn't take the Chinese vaccine because of the propaganda campaign the Pentagon ran in the Philippines, our ally, by the way. That's legal now.

Doesn't have to be passed by State Department. Doesn't have to be approved by State Department. How stable or unstable is the Zelensky government, if you can even call it the Zelensky government, because, must have a real cordon around him of security because I would have thought, given my experience with Ukraine in the early part of the 2000s, he would have already been assassinated. He'd already been shot or grabbed and put in jail, some jail where you can't get out of. I think we must be guarding him President Putin Speculated that when he's no longer of value to the U.S.

The U.S. will get rid of him I don't know if he meant kill him, lock him up or depose him Send him to one of his mansions around the world We'll put him in an armored personnel carrier Outside the consulate and he'll come out of the personnel carrier in a coffin like we did Jim in Vietnam. There's no doubt that if we need to get rid of him, we'll get rid of him. I doubt that we will do it though because of the repercussions and maybe after November, but not before November. It's already looking bad enough for Biden after the debate last night.

Right, right. Here is President Zelensky. We're not sure of the date, but it's sometime in the past week or 10 days for the first time indicating the need for negotiations. Of course, his condition for the negotiations is totally unacceptable to the Russians. But it's the first time I've heard him use this word in English. Cut number 15, Chris. We have to find and to prepare this plan and to put this plan on the table. During months, we don't have too much time because we have a lot of, you know,

a lot of wounded and dead people on the battlefield and through civilians. That's why we don't want to have this war during years. So that's why we want to prepare this joint plan, put it on the table to the second summit, second peace summit. Didn't actually use the word negotiations, but obviously that's what he's implicating. But it's the first time I've heard him say, Colonel, that we don't have much time left because of the level of death and injury on the battlefield. I guess he's recognizing the inevitable. I hope so. He speaks the truth.

And I hope that he's going to show some courage here, finally, and do something about it. Because the only way to do anything about it is to negotiate. And to negotiate probably mostly on Russia's terms. And those terms will not be nearly as generous as were the terms negotiated in Istanbul two and a half years ago and disrupted by the United States and the United Kingdom. As acceptable to Ukraine as the ones in Istanbul. But they don't have a choice now. Right. Sorry, I really got a bad cold.

Oh, quite all right. I appreciate you coming on. I won't keep you very long. United States contractors on the ground in Ukraine. Can you tell us how that works? Are they soldiers of fortune there on their own? Are they subject to military command? Are their corporate bosses subject to contractual agreement? I mean, what do they do? It's a mystery to me. One of the things we used to say to Dick Cheney and others like Dick Cheney was, hey, dude, when you put all these contractors all over the battlefield

so we can save soldiers for the front lines, what do you think they're going to do when the bombs start dropping, grenades go off, and artillery rounds hit? We knew what they were going to do. They were going to do what they did in Vietnam when I was in Vietnam and I had contractors all around me. They ran. They ran for the nearest foxhole, the nearest hooch, the nearest place where they could hide. So I have no idea what they mean by, quote, contractors, unquote. So I have to assume it's something more than what we mean by contractors. But typically, are they retired military, but still of military or fighting age,

who have signed a contract to be paid money by somebody, I suppose ultimately the Department of Defense, to put on some sort of gear, not U.S. military, but something like it, and to go into battle? That's what I'm assuming. Like I said, if it's the typical contractor, they're going to have to have very close by a foxhole with concrete in it and everything else to get into because civilians, contractors or not, just don't do war very well.

And I don't blame them. In this case, they're going to get killed. So I'd be the same way probably. Who would have made this decision? How far up the chain of command would this be? These are American boots on the ground, but they're civilians dressed in camouflage. I would assume that that has to be the commander in chief also. That has to be the president. I don't know that because of what I saw last night and what I've

suspected for almost six months now. I think people around Biden are making the decisions. I don't think Biden is capable of making the decisions. But it would have to have been made by him or in his name. Yes. The Secretary of Defense would not have hired these contractors without a sign-off from the White House. Dick Cheney might have, but I don't think Lloyd Austin would. Okay. What happens when they come home

in body bags? I guess it's not the same as soldiers, but unless the government hides it from the press, there has to be an effect. Five Americans were killed today. 10 Americans were killed today, whatever the number is. Well, it'd probably be just like it was in Iraq. And this is mostly DynCorp and Eric Prince and his boys and such. They're paid so much that they're willing to take the risk. They're usually single. They're usually mid-30s or late 20s. They're usually former soldiers.

And they know what risk they're taking. But when you're making a quarter of a million dollars or more to do it, you do it. Is Ukraine still receiving and consuming, for lack of a better word, U.S. missiles and artillery shells faster than the American military industrial complex can produce or manufacture them. They were, but I'm not so sure they are anymore because right now I think what they're doing is trying to get out of the way of those sorts of things coming at them from the Russians. I don't think they're doing a whole heck of a lot of fighting anymore. I think they're doing a lot of dying and a lot of backing up and a lot of moving out. But to answer your question, I suspect that given the capacity of our own facilities,

Europe's facilities, that Ukraine is probably down to what I would call a basic load, maybe even less than that. They don't have the kind of ordinance that would be necessary, for example, to conduct a counteroffensive or any kind of offensive, and probably don't have enough to conduct an adequate defense. What happens at the end? Do they get more reckless when it's apparent that the military cannot survive, when its existence is finite, when they can look at the calendar and actually see the month and the week beyond which it's unlikely that they could engage in significant combat. A ground army falling apart in front of a superior enemy is not a pretty sight. And if we keep going the way we are now, and we don't sit down and talk, we don't have some kind of a ceasefire. And this could last

forever. I mean, we could have a Cyprus situation or a Korean Peninsula situation, 100 years from now, we're still talking about the DMZ in Ukraine. But if we don't do that, if we don't stop the actual fighting or get it down to a very minimal level, then you're going to see that. You're going to see a rout of an army, and that's not a pretty sight, and it's when more people die than in any other place because basically, Judge, what you're doing is you're shooting as fast as you can in the back. That's the way Patton put it. When the Germans turned and ran, you wanted to kill them. That was called the exploitation.

They're very vulnerable when they're routed and you want to kill them. Why? You can kill them and they're not shooting back. Wow. Last question before I move over torael uh we'll go back to where we started with sevastopol what do you think putin will do something dramatic something you know revenge is a dish best eaten cold something manifesting a great patience or will he succumb to the pressures on him to let the United States know that he knows who is behind this? Well, first of all, he's not Sicilian. Very clever, Colonel. God love you. So true. I think he is probably one of the most circumspect, cool-headed, pragmatic, and prudent leaders in the world today.

I don't know how he keeps his patience. I don't know how he keeps from saying some really ragged things in his press conferences and so forth. Sometimes I wish he would level a few lightning bolts. But I don't think he wants a wider war. I do not think he wants a wider war. Certainly not a war with NATO, because he knows, as we should know but apparently don't, that it could spiral into the use of nuclear weapons. And so he's not going to do anything that's asymmetrical or in a way that

is clearly escalatory. At least that's my view. Now, he might do something and it might be a wicked blow against Ukraine or even against another NATO country than the US or against the US. But I don't think so because he's intent on managing this conflict and not allowing it to get out of hand, unlike us. Switching gears, how reckless is it for Netanyahu and his defense minister to be threatening Hezbollah? I can understand why they're doing it because Bibi is desperate to deflect attention off of a very failed Gaza operation. I mean, in every dimension it has failed in publicity, in propaganda, in the number of Palestinians that he's killed, in the number of Hamas that he's killed, in getting the hostages

back. He can talk all day long. We've got half the hostages back. Everything's wonderful, blah, blah, blah. He's failed. He's failed miserably. So he's got to deflect attention. And the way to deflect attention is to find a new enemy and to get that enemy engaged. And he's got an ulterior motive there too, the same motive he's had for over 15 years. That's to get the United States to help him take out his most formidable enemy, which is Iran, and have Iran are linked to the point where if he really goes after Hezbollah in a significant way, he might draw Iran into the conflict. How stable or unstable is his government? I want to say it's very unstable, except that they are probably looking around and saying, well,

Likud, Likud, Likud, there's no one else. They're either worse or they're centrist, which means they got just a slightly less bit of blood on their hands, or they're orthodox nuts. So I don't know where you turn. And because they don't have a constitution, because they don't have a process for doing this other than holding snap elections or whatever. I don't know how they do it. I don't know how they get rid of Netanyahu. Netanyahu knew how to get rid of Rabin. Netanyahu got Rabin assassinated. I don't think that's going to happen to Netanyahu, but I sure would like to see him run out of town on the rail with his pine tar all over him and his hair burning.

You said Netanyahu knew how to get rid of Rabin. Was he behind that assassination? Is that a general assumption in the American State Department? If you've ever seen the video, the two Jewish documentary filmmakers made, and of course it got killed. It was shown for about a week in the U.S. and then it got killed. AIPAC is all powerful when it comes to things like this. They made the video using about a third to a half of the film footage, actual footage. They actually filmed Netanyahu's political rallies. They actually filmed the settlers at those rallies. And they showed you how his incendiary remarks got the settlers, particularly a fringe of really radical settlers from which the assassin came, all worked up and

ready to go after Rabin. Then they show you the actual footage of the assassination. And when you watch that footage and that young man walk up to Rabin and put that pistol and shoot him, you can conclude pretty well who stirred up the crowd, who got that guy there, and who awarded him afterwards by resurrecting him as a hero. That's what Netanyahu did for this summer. Well, I did not know this, and it's consistent with what many of our other guests, Colonel McGregor, Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, you have said about Netanyahu. How would American military help against Hezbollah work? Would it be all be air and naval?

It wouldn't be ground troops, would it? It'd be air power. It'd be Air Force out of your deed and other places, and it'd be naval air power. Although that's going to be somewhat limited since about all we can do is put one carrier in there. Most Americans don't understand carriers. If you've got two carriers, one carrier you can only do 24 hours.

Two carriers you can do about 48 hours. Three carriers you can do around the clock for as long as you can supply them because of the synergy created by the support of each for the other. So I bet we couldn't put more than one carrier, maybe at most two in the Eastern mid. So Netanyahu might not get the air power he's looking for. And without that air power, Hezbollah will crush him. It'll be close.

It'll be close. The more dramatic thing, though, is going to be what those Israeli Jews remaining in Israel do when their homes are burning, they can't get from one place to another, the supermarket is burning, the liquor store is burning, the discotheque is burning, because that's what we're talking about if Hezbollah unleashes these 150 plus thousand missiles they have. So he's going to have a hard time.

He thinks he's got a problem with 70,000, 80,000 leaving the northern border right now because of Hezbollah. He's going to have millions wanting to leave. And in four weeks, the United States Congress will greet him like they greeted Douglas MacArthur at the end of World War II. I'm hearing from my Democratic contacts that maybe even more and more are not going to show up. I hope it's true. None of them should show up. None of the Congress should show up. Maybe Lindsey Graham, he can hold hands with Bibi and talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Right, right. I have only heard of two Democrats, Elizabeth, well, two Democrats and one Republican, Thomas Massey, whose wife tragically died earlier today. I don't know the story behind that. I saw that. I really mind you. My wife just died, too. I know Tom a little bit. Thomas is a dear, dear friend of mine, and I don't know the story.

But anyway, he announced he's not going to go. And Elizabeth Warren and, of course, announced he's not going to go. And Elizabeth Warren and, of course, Bernie Sanders are not going to go. But the more that announce, I think the more we'll stay away. Has an open and notorious and obvious war criminal ever addressed the United States Congress, as far as you know? Not that I'm aware of. Mark Pocan actually said on YouTube the other day that he'd be glad to serve the warrant to Bibi when he comes. I hope he's serious. served it yet. They have authorized warrants for former Russian Defense Minister Shoigu and Russian military commander Gerasimov. They're fighting a legitimate war. Netanyahu is engaged in the genocide. Colonel, it's a pleasure. Take care of your cold and your voice. I hope we see you again before the 4th. If we don't, it's a great

holiday. You are part of the tradition of that holiday. I'll be thinking of you on the 4th, but maybe we can squeeze you in in the short week we have next week. Full-throated next week. Thank you. Thank you, Colonel. All the best. Sure. Happy 4th to you.

Coming up at 4.15 this afternoon, the roundtable, the end of the day, the end of the week, the end of the month. Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!